4 ms·

Can't forget being "for the rule of law".

by sidibe 1y ago

matwood 1y ago
Back the blue, unless of course it's the Capitol Police.
- MathMonkeyMan 1y ago
  I tend to think of "rule of law" as describing the fairness of the courts. But then you need effective law enforcement for the courts to mean anything.
- bunderbunder 1y ago
  Or, in my city, the cops who blew the whistle on other cops for electrocuting people's testicles as a means of extracting forced confessions. The "back the blue" crowd absolutely hates those guys.
- rayiner 1y ago
  Most of these examples are good ones, but this one actually isn’t. I don’t know what part of the country you’re from, but in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens. I don’t want to debate the substance of the view, I’m just pointing out that it’s not actually contradictory like you’re implying. I grew up in virginia when it was a red state, my first reaction would’ve been relief that it was still possible. But it also would’ve been my first reaction 25 years ago when I was a Gore supporter in a Bush county. Jefferson’s tree of liberty and all that. I suspect this divergence comes from people who have internalized the 1960s civil rights movement view, and whose chief concern is the government protecting minorities from the majority. Meanwhile, the more traditional Anglo-american view is chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. > chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government. In fact, by their actions, they make the government - police and prosecutors - free to abuse people in almost any way with no reprocussions. One of the latest Trump executive orders even tells the DoJ to go after any legal authority prosecuting police. And by their actions, they are chiefly concerned with using the government to persecute and suppress anyone they disagree with. > 60s ... traditional It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so it’s bad to attack the police. But the Capitol police are protecting government officials from citizens, so attacking them is less bad. That’s the view. > 60s ... traditional It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'. The assertion that the civil rights era signaled a major shift in views about the relationship between individuals and the government is hardly controversial. There’s a book on this idea (probably more than one): https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-distort-american-politics https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis.... Indeed, folks in the progressive left share more or less the same premise. If you talk to a progressive about foundational principles like federalism and limited government, the chief response is that those ideas were championed by our forebearers so that the government wouldn’t be powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. The point of disagreement is about whether the new approach is better than the traditional one.
      - mmooss 1y ago
        > Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. The majority can always protect itself by changing the law. Edit: > https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis.... I skimmed through this. The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. And look at this piece of doublespeak: When I talk about civil rights, the reader should not get the impression that I’m friendly to segregation, or hostile to the civil rights movement as it existed for the whole of the 20th century up until 1964. In fact, I’m very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation for equal citizenship that went on up till then, but there were problems in the Civil Rights Act that were not evident at first. They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. They are "very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation", however. :)
  - soared 1y ago
    Is this saying the viewpoint is that violence against the government (capitol police) is supported, violence against local police is not supported (back the blue) and violence against citizens is supported (back the blue)?
    - bilbo0s 1y ago
      The guy's arguing all over the place. Not much of it makes logical sense unless you stop looking for logic in the arguments. Suffice to say, like most ideologues, the beliefs make sense when analyzed in accordance with the logic rules of the holder of the beliefs. Think of the beliefs being discussed more as doctrinal tenets of a pseudo religious sect, and you get a little closer to the thinking of the adherents.
      - throw16180339 1y ago
        Their beliefs are fairly simple. Members of the in-group have divine right and shouldn't be bound by laws. Anyone who opposes them is the enemy and should be harmed or destroyed.

Can't forget being "for the rule of law".

by sidibe 1y ago

Can't forget being "for the rule of law".

matwood 1y ago

Back the blue, unless of course it's the Capitol Police.

MathMonkeyMan 1y ago
I tend to think of "rule of law" as describing the fairness of the courts. But then you need effective law enforcement for the courts to mean anything.
bunderbunder 1y ago
Or, in my city, the cops who blew the whistle on other cops for electrocuting people's testicles as a means of extracting forced confessions. The "back the blue" crowd absolutely hates those guys.
rayiner 1y ago
Most of these examples are good ones, but this one actually isn’t. I don’t know what part of the country you’re from, but in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens. I don’t want to debate the substance of the view, I’m just pointing out that it’s not actually contradictory like you’re implying. I grew up in virginia when it was a red state, my first reaction would’ve been relief that it was still possible. But it also would’ve been my first reaction 25 years ago when I was a Gore supporter in a Bush county. Jefferson’s tree of liberty and all that. I suspect this divergence comes from people who have internalized the 1960s civil rights movement view, and whose chief concern is the government protecting minorities from the majority. Meanwhile, the more traditional Anglo-american view is chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. > chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government. In fact, by their actions, they make the government - police and prosecutors - free to abuse people in almost any way with no reprocussions. One of the latest Trump executive orders even tells the DoJ to go after any legal authority prosecuting police. And by their actions, they are chiefly concerned with using the government to persecute and suppress anyone they disagree with. > 60s ... traditional It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive. The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so it’s bad to attack the police. But the Capitol police are protecting government officials from citizens, so attacking them is less bad. That’s the view. > 60s ... traditional It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'. The assertion that the civil rights era signaled a major shift in views about the relationship between individuals and the government is hardly controversial. There’s a book on this idea (probably more than one): https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-distort-american-politics https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis.... Indeed, folks in the progressive left share more or less the same premise. If you talk to a progressive about foundational principles like federalism and limited government, the chief response is that those ideas were championed by our forebearers so that the government wouldn’t be powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. The point of disagreement is about whether the new approach is better than the traditional one.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. The majority can always protect itself by changing the law. Edit: > https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis.... I skimmed through this. The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. And look at this piece of doublespeak: When I talk about civil rights, the reader should not get the impression that I’m friendly to segregation, or hostile to the civil rights movement as it existed for the whole of the 20th century up until 1964. In fact, I’m very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation for equal citizenship that went on up till then, but there were problems in the Civil Rights Act that were not evident at first. They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. They are "very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation", however. :)
- soared 1y ago
  Is this saying the viewpoint is that violence against the government (capitol police) is supported, violence against local police is not supported (back the blue) and violence against citizens is supported (back the blue)?
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    The guy's arguing all over the place. Not much of it makes logical sense unless you stop looking for logic in the arguments. Suffice to say, like most ideologues, the beliefs make sense when analyzed in accordance with the logic rules of the holder of the beliefs. Think of the beliefs being discussed more as doctrinal tenets of a pseudo religious sect, and you get a little closer to the thinking of the adherents.
    - throw16180339 1y ago
      Their beliefs are fairly simple. Members of the in-group have divine right and shouldn't be bound by laws. Anyone who opposes them is the enemy and should be harmed or destroyed.